[CCC DEV] The overloaded word "pin"

[Martin Ellis]

Hi,

I know the "pin" is the wrong name but if we want to convert arduino
users I think we should stick with it.

In the pin mapping how about having something like "chip.pin"

Martin.

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Matt Jadud <matt at jadud.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The word "pin" is problematic. On one hand, the ATmega has pins. I
> think that's a "correct" use of the word. I can refer to "pin 7" on
> the ATmega, and there is a datasheet that tells me where that is on a
> particular package (DIP, etc.).
>
> We also refer to "pin 13" on the Arduino. Now, perhaps that is proper,
> to refer to "pins" on a board. But, really, the Arduino has female
> headers. Yet, we don't say "header 13", nor do we say "plug 13".
> However, we most definitely plug things into an Arduino. (We plug
> wires into a breadboard, too, and we don't call the holes in a
> breadboard "pins," do we?)
>
> I'm not actually *trying* to be pedantic, but I may be succeeding. I'd
> like to use different terminology in the libraries for referring to
> ATmega "pins" and board... whats? We have a "pinmapping" module, and
> it is perfoming a mapping... but mapping "pins" to "pins," when it
> seems like they're *different things*, is annoying. And, giving me the
> naming-screaming-meemies.
>
> "plug.to.pin.map" doesn't seem like a good name, but it gets closer
> than "pin.location". "board.to.pin.map" is better... but do we use the
> variable "pin" in PROC headers for when we're referring to both the
> board "pin" and the ATmega "pin"?
>
> Right. Anyway. I'm normally in bed by now, but I have to do an airport
> run soon. I'll step away from the keyboard momentarily.
>
> Cheers,
> Matt
>
> --
> Sent from my TRS-80
>
> _______________________________________________
> developers mailing list
> developers at concurrency.cc
> http://unhosting.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
>